User talk:GeoWriter

Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you are considering posting a message for me, please observe Wikiquette: *post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *use headlines when starting new talk topics. *comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article – not here. *do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment of anyone. *sign your messages with four tildes like this ~~~~ . (If you don't sign, I probably won't reply because I won't know who you are.) Comments which fail to follow the five rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Geology. Maybe you to please consider helping to improve the oil shale article. This article has developed quite well, but some more expert assistance is needed. Thank you in advance. Beagel 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you adding the age of Scotland torbanite into oil shale article. As we are in the process of splitting this article, I moved this table into oil shale geology article. Maybe you would like to take a look on this article? Beagel 12:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Oil shale for the new peer review and related spin-off articles (Oil shale extraction, Oil shale geology, Oil shale industry, History of the oil shale industry, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale economics, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry) for the peer review. Your comments and edits will be most welcome.Beagel 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoWriter, kindly support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology of solar terrestrial planets. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying it should be renamed as the "North Atlantic Igneous Province"? Black Tusk 12:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GeoWriter. I am going to nominate the Oil shale geology article for the GAN. However, I think this article probably needs some more editing and improvement before the nomination. Maybe you are interested to take a look on this article? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I nominated the Oil shale geology article for the GAN. You are welcome to comment and improve this article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to join the Volcanoes Wiki! Questions can be directed to my main user page. MeldshalP (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resident Mario/Volcanism of Hawaii Workgroup Just here to say Yay for joining. I've seen you around the articles before. Currently, Loihi (me, Viriditas), Kīlauea (Ceranthor), and Hawaii hotspot (me) are in development. ResMar 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loihi, take two. ResMar 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...for your edits to Hawaii hotspot. Sometimes a little trim is necessary, and I think the edits you have applied have improved the article. I was actually thinking of splitting "characteristics", but I'm not sure of the notability of such an article, as there is no precedence that I know of for such an article. But it is so long and wordy, I think that is what keeps people from commenting on these types of articles because they do not want to read the whole thing. The article failed FAC for this reason.

So basically, thanks for making the article shorter where it was necessary. I'm hoping to try again, if you would like to be listed as a co-nom, just let me know. You are currently 4th in contribs, if you make some more edits and catch up to us, it would be good to list you next time. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 01:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your recent edit to Hawaii hotspot, it was brought up at FAC that 0.02 km3 (0.0048 cu mi) was harder to visualize than 20 cubic hectometers (26,000,000 cu yd). Personally, I'm not sure which I prefer, and I don't think its a big deal, but I thought you should know this may come up again. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Volcanoes Barnstar
		This one goes to a dedicated editor who's been quietly improving the quite part of wikipedia that is volcanoes since...<waits for Special:Contributions to load> 2007! Hard to find a volcano article without your name on it somewhere :) ResMarHohoho 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you haven't noticed, I've started a structural reorganization of WikiProject Volcanoes. So far, I've beutified the head page and moved a lot of the stuff to subpages of the project, so as not to bulk the main page. As an active member of the project, this is just a notice about what's going on. Comments go on the talk page. Happy holidays, ResMar 14:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GeoWriter, There is a discussion if all oil shales are shales or not. Your comments are appreciated. Beagel (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoWriter, thanks for helping out with List of 21st century earthquakes, it's a constant struggle against all those who want to put the earthquake that they felt into that list, or just the latest that they heard of on the news or from the USGS, no matter how insignificant. The lede is a lot clearer now, something that I'd been meaning to do for a while. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to help. I expect it is quite big news for some people to hear about or feel an earthquake in their area, but if everyone included it on this list, the list would lose its impact. Hopefully, the guidance might steer at least some editors in the right direction. GeoWriter (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Talk:2010 Central Canada earthquake in which I'm trying to get views on the proposed earthquake article notability guidelines. On the basis of those guidelines the Central Canada quake article should be deleted, which probably won't win me many friends there. Maybe there is some merit in including something on population affected, but I fear that it would let too many of the little earthquakes back in and be heavily biased towards english-speaking areas. Mikenorton (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have your talk page watched, so no need for the talkback. Mikenorton (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening the discussion on the Canada quake is a good idea. I advise against "population affected" as a criterion because it is not measurable. It would require correlation of "population distribution at the exact moment of tremor" and "earthquake intensity" to absurd levels of accuracy. I'm confident such correlation data do not exist. Likewise, I doubt reliable mappings of structural damage are available either, certainly not outside the developed world. I recomend that the current criteria (magnitude >=7 or fatalities) are retained as the benchmark. GeoWriter (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:This. Actually that was a valid question back then, I got pinged with it and wrote the article soon after :) ResMar 01:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google books throws up multiple references describing Devils Tower National Monument as trachyte including [1][2][3][4]. Although there are just as many, if not more, describing it as phonolite, including all the geology books I looked at. Perhaps you can throw some light on this: has the meaning of trachyte changed over the years, is there some doubt over the classification of Devils Tower, or is it that the common use of the word is more general than the geological definition.? SpinningSpark 06:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the source for all these "trachyte" descriptions trace back to Henry Newton, the geologist with Dodge's 1875 expedition. SpinningSpark 07:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links to the references. Phonolite was not discovered/defined as a rock type until 1877. If trachyte is being used these days for Devil's Tower, I suspect that it is most likely due to perpetuating outdated sources. Things have moved on considerably in geology in the 135 years since Dodge's expedition. The meaning of trachyte has narrowed as the classification and discovery of new rock types has progressed. Current rock classification standards are summarised in the UNESCO authoritative book on the subject : Le Maitre, R. (editor) (2002) Igneous Rocks: A Classification and Glossary of Terms, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Some igneous rock types are used in a concise/strict as well as a loose/general sense. Basalt is a minefield in this respect, because of its more varied mineralogy and widespread occurrence. As I mentioned in my previous comment, on the Devil's Tower talk page, there is a transition, but Devil's Tower would not be regarded as one of those transitional rock types. Devil's Tower falls into the phonolite category. Incidentally, I recently revised the Bass Rock article the other way, because it is transitional, phonolitic trachyte rather than phonolite. --GeoWriter (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reverting you, I thought you may have been editing based just on what was written in the article but it is now clear that you actually know what Devil's tower is made of. Perpetuating outdated sources may well be right, they all seem to have very similar, even plagiarised, wording and one of them cites verbatim a report from Dodge that sounds awfully familiar if you have read the rest. SpinningSpark 18:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the space-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the lists of members of WikiProject Moon (here) and Mars (here). If you still consider yourself to be an active editor either of these projects, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Solar System at 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Yes I am active again. I will provide you withe the IAVCEI / UN list asap. Can you email me direct as I dive in and out of WP when I have time. My own email is Gerard-4-rox@hotmail.com. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Geologist (talk • contribs) 12:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pitchstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lustre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi GeoWriter! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pico do Fogo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hotspot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoWriter

The journal title is "Carbonates and Evaporites"

Dolomites and calcites aren't evaporites, they aren't water soluble.

Plancton shells snow on the ocean floor.

See rruff.info/ima, choose the tag "Water Soluble" (321 minerals). [5]

I think that you were wrong here. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a lacustrine environment, calcite is the commonest evaporite mineral - also aragonite and dolomite. See [6] & [7]. They may not be mainly evaporitic in their occurrence, but I was taught that they formed part of the Evaporite group. Mikenorton (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll revert it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad the issue seems to have been resolved.

All the books I've read about evaporites include calcite and dolomite, although I have noticed that they pay much less attention to the carbonates compared to the halides and sulphates. I think one's view of the "evaporite group" of minerals depends on whether one's focus is initial evaporation or later preservation. The classic descriptions of evaporation focus on the halides and sulphates. Study of the carbonates becomes more important when focus moves to diagenesis and preservation because e.g. calcite is often a pseudomorphic secondary replacement mineral in evaporite rock sequences. GeoWriter (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geowriter, thanks for your help tidying the Tempest Anderson and Trace fossil images I've uploaded to Commons from York Museums Trust's collections. I hope you're finding them interesting! If you feel like making any edits to the related articles and would like some support please let me know, or perhaps you know of other geologically-minded editors I should get in touch with? Cheers! PatHadley (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading the photos and also the cropped enhanced versions. I do find them very interesting. I know from my interest in volcanoes that Tempest Anderson was a major figure in the history of the science so I'm glad that some of his material can now reach a wider public.

More generally, I have seen from the Yorkshire Museum Geology Collection webpage, that the Trust has a large collection of rocks, minerals and fossils. Would it be possible to upload photos of some of the Trust's minerals, fossils and especially rocks to Wikimedia Commons, please? Wikipedia is particularly weak in its representation of rock specimens. I anticipate that such material could be very useful for improving Wikipedia's geological articles. GeoWriter (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Glad you like Anderson's images. Sorry for the delayed reply - this must have got lost in my watchlist.... I can certainly talk to the geology curators about this! It would be great to be able to set up a partnership. Are there particular areas you'd like to see covered? I can have a look through the catalogue tomorrow and see what's available. Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied over at my talk page. Looking forward to working together! PatHadley (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, if you have the time I could really use some hand gestures from an expert on what's still lacking in Shield volcano (also, any good sources you know)? ResMar 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you'd edited Salt tectonics and hoped you would take a look at this new article. It relies on a single source and really can't tell if it is published research (copyright?), an offshoot of tectonics, or even part of someone's original research. I changed "techtonics" to "tectonics" and tagged for resources but that was as far as I could go. Thanks. EBY (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested at the article talk page that the name be changed to allochthonous salt structures, a term used quite widely in the literature, whereas the current one is hardly used at all. The content is OK, although the terminology introduced by Hudec and Jackson hasn't really taken off yet, although some other workers are using it. I would like to see it expanded to cover other allochthonous salt structures, like canopies, for which there are hundreds of sources available. The article was created as part of a university course (if that's not already clear). Mikenorton (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fault (geology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Translocation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diorite may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• transitional to [[gabbro]]. The presence of significant quartz makes the rock type quartz-diorite (>5% quartz) or [[tonalite]] (>20% quartz), and if [[orthoclase]] ([[potassium]] feldspar) is present at greater than ten percent,
• growth bands of plagioclase and amphibole surrounding a nucleus within a diorite porphyry [[Matrix (geology|matrix]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Geology Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work on improving the readability and internal links of geological articles Mikenorton (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. GeoWriter (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Talk:Monadnock#Requested_move_12_September_2015 and would like to hear you opinion. -Lappspira (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You commented upon items relating to tsunamis in the Cumbre Vieja page. I decided to rewrite the page - extensively as it contained many errors of fact, a lot of histrionics and an awful lot of pseudo-science presented as science. I actually work in the Canaries as a volcanologist and became increasingly annoyed at the misrepresentation that was being presented. Having discussed the issue with my colleagues it was agreed that whilst strictly not connected to the Cumbre Vieja, the media in particular present Lituya Bay, Vaijont Dam etc., as "proving" the so called mega-tsunami claims. Which is why after much deliberation I decided to leave them in. The trouble is that people watch TV and the documentaries which present pseudo-science as fact and they believe that it must be true as the producers broadcast the information - not helped by a certain insurance financed professor who insists that the claim that the Cumbre Vieja is in the initial stages of failure without any evidence to support his claims - but he shouts long and hard and has BIG bucks behind him. So on that basis I feel that the article is best served by presenting the information as it stands. Let me know how you feel. Thanks,The Geologist (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami items - I am sorry but I disagree. However if you who are not involved with the Cumbre Vieja want to do what you suggest then do it but don't be surprised if they do reappear - not by me. I did as I said think long and hard about the information and discussed it with my colleagues who are based here in the Canary Islands before deciding that the informatiom should be left in. Someone is intent on messing with the page - people who have not got the facts. The Lituya Bay incident has sat on the CV pages for several years long before I decided to rewrite it, and I feel that there has been ample opportunity to remove them. I and my colleagues are sick tired and weary of people who don't like what is written about the CV and seem to deliberately want to perpetuate the myth presented by a certain Bill McGuire, Simon Day and Stephen Ward who have been financed by the insurance industry. However not wanting to contravene Wiki's ethos etc; as far as I am concerned then they can be transferred to the tsunami page, but I still feel that they should be mentioned especially the Lituya Bay incident as that is what lead McGuire, Day etc to seek funding from the insurance companies. Incidentally which items are you referring to as not being "Peer Reviewed?" as every reference I have included is published in peer reviewed journals. I do not consider the media to be peer reviewed - unlike some people. The Geologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.108.129 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry if I came across as annoyed in my last post to you. Thanks for your guidance and opinions and assistance which I really do appreciate. I tried to be as detached from the information I have presented as is possible and strongly resisted any temptation to involve personal opinions about certain scientific personnel - which was done in previous editions of the page. I have just realised that I was not logged in when I sent the post above - apologies as I didn't do it deliberately.

On reflection I concur about the Lituya Bay, Voiant Dam etc., and as I state strictly they were not tsunami's in my interpretation of what a tsunami actually is. In reality they were nothing more than a big splash - similar to someone dropping a boulder in a lake. The trouble is as you are aware that the media encouraged by some scientists jump on bandwagons and then present the information as scientific proof of something. How many times are we advised that some lump of rock is on an orbit which will bring it within "X" km of Earth but then the next sentence states that the event won't happen for the next umpteen tens, hundreds etc years. People panic and perhaps a better explanation of Lituya Bay, Vaiont Dam etc is needed to help counter the argument that the CV is in imminent danger of failing.

Perhaps something like this:

"Examples of so called mega-tsunami that have been used by the media are little more than large surges of water that resulted in a large volume of rock and debris entering confining waters. Whilst these may have surged to high levels (as at Lituya Bay in 1958) and displaced large volumes of water they are not tsunamis, more importantly not mega-tsunamis." Thanks for your time.The Geologist (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Having given this much thought I think that whilst the reference to Lituya Bay etc may not stricto senso be relevant, they do nevertheless have some purpose in the item. I will give consideration to rewording and emphasising that they only serve as models of what might happen when a large volume of material suddenly enter a body of water, but the emphasis must be that no mega - tsunami has been recorded within recorded history. As the examples indicate the sudden pulse of energy creates a large surge which rapidly dissipates. Before I put anything on the page I would be happy to let you see it and agree the wording - if you are happy to do do. Your thoughts please.The Geologist (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trachyandesite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auvergne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Quality contributions! Wikiwanito (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. GeoWriter (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edit summary comment and descriptive edits regarding this image. The only reason I called it a volcanic bomb is because that was what the on site geologist/volcanologist called it. Would it be more appropriate for the tephra article? Thank in advance.--Godot13 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the image accordingly.--Godot13 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you renamed the file, because it prevents people using it incorrectly in future (at least I hope so). Just to clarify, it can't be a volcanic bomb because it shows layers of thousands of roughly thumb-sized fragments which were originally blobs of molten lava that rained down onto the ground surface. A volcanic bomb is a single blob of molten lava and does not have internal layering like this slab. There is a chance that the slab in the photo could be a volcanic block that was ripped off the volcanic vent wall and ejected as a solid block when lava and/or gas was erupting from a vent, or it could be a slab of tephra that was eroded from a volcanic cone after eruption. Without examining the surrounding area, it's not possible for me to be sure if its a volcanic block or a volcanic slab.

I'm shocked that another geologist called it a volcanic bomb!

The photo is a good example of tephra and also nice that it's from a neglected volcanic region, so it would be appropriate for the tephra article. GeoWriter (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Geology of Germany

added links pointing to Porphyry, Sudeten, Violet and Conglomerate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeoWriter -- Do you have Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary on your watchlist? An editor just added a comment to Talk:Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary#Suggestions for improving this and the other article, a section in which the previous comment was in 2008. If you didn't have the article on your watchlist, I thought you might be interested. I don't know if there has been discussion on this in the intervening years.  – Corinne (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Corinne for telling me about this. I'll take a look at the article. GeoWriter (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeoWriter -- You might be interested in a discussion at Talk:Mountain ecology#Renaming article. If I understand it correctly, an editor already changed the name of the article before any discussion, and another editor suggested leaving the new name until discussion was held and consensus had been reached. Also see the sub-section just below this; they're related. You have some expertise in this area, so you may be able to help.  – Corinne (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took my rewrite from [8] (yes, in spite of WP:NOTADICTIONARY). Do you really think my revision created an inaccuracy?? Also, I was trying to implement a Manual of Style policy with regard to ledes that discourages the use of things like "means" or "refers to" or "is a word for". KDS4444 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lede section should be rewritten and I welcome your intention of trying to implement the Manual of Style point about definitions and, as I indicated when I reverted your edit, I appreciate that your edit was made in good faith with the intention of improving the article. Orogeny is a set of processes that may include mountain formation. Unfortunately, I think your edit put too much emphasis on mountains, and on balance, I felt that the previous version was a bit more accurate, although there is much scope for improvement. I hope it will be possible for us to eventually create a better lede section if a discussion is started on this in the article's talk page. GeoWriter (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your comments to heart regarding undue length of the Impact Origin Hypothesis section I added earlier to theOlympus Mons page, but also thinking that this section needs content to make any sense, I have proposed a much shorter version (reduced from 670 to 278 words, and from 4 references to 3). The text frames this clearly as a hypothesis, which seems appropriate for Wikipedia -- countless other pages on planetary and other topics present hypotheses as well. This particular hypothesis is new (first published November 2015), but peer-reviewed and carefully built from evidence. It addresses major anomalies facing the volcanic hypothesis (e.g., circularity, concentric structure, no isostatic depression, and debris flows that traveled up to 750 km down a pre-Olympus slope of 0.2 degrees). These points are made compactly; interested readers can pursue on their own. IChiloe (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pulpí Geode, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selenite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that Antillanca Group actually exists but Antillanca redirects to the ski resort. I also wonder what the standard for one volcano vs. group of volcanoes is, my impression has always been that it's a "degree" sort of thing that everybody and every source will disagree on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding Antillanca Group. I don't know why my search for that failed earlier.

There are two types of volcanic groups as far as naming is concerned. One type of group includes a volcano after which the group is named. For example the Olkhovy Volcanic Group comprises a shield volcano named Olkhovy and one other lower cone (called Plosky), so it would often be valid to refer to Olkhovy (meaning the individual volcano) or Olkhovy (meaning the wider group). The other type of group, including the Antillanca Group, is not named after any of its constituent volcanoes and in this case it's better to avoid giving the impression that Antillanca is an individual volcano. Of course, that still leaves the option of taking individual volcanoes of the Antillanca Group as examples/an example, but using their individual names. GeoWriter (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the list of volcanoes in the Laguna del Maule article is concerned (from which I removed Antillanca), I think it was an incomplete list anyway, which I think is still good enough without Antillanca. GeoWriter (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna del Maule (volcano), actually. Laguna del Maule is the article on the lake. These title collisions are a nuisance. The selection was mostly arbitrary anyway; I took it from the source but I don't think they had a specific inclusion criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earth's magnetic field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cordierite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear,GeoWriter,

I have noticed, that you took part in contributing to the article Mineralogy - a fascinating field of science, which I’m considering, as a very important and endlessly interesting one, which deserves to the nth degree, as I think, to have its own Wikipedia Mineralogy Barnstar, and if you agree with this statement and will find the design of the Mineralogy Barnstar as a good one, please, give your support in the section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. This section not visited very often by Wikipedians, and the authors of new Barnstars usually invite for discussion those Editors, who are interested in the related fields of science, art, etc. This Sunday morning (30/10) I’ll upload Mineralogy Barnstar to the following section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards Complete description of this Barnstar will be possible to find tomorrow (30/10) morning on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mineralogy

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, GeoWriter. Great thanks for your support! It was very good to see, that this Barnstar has found your appreciation. I think, that one day the article Mineralogy will be a good articles nominee anew, this time — successfully and, I hope, that during this, gradually approaching nice day, the contributors will be awarded by the, belonging precisely to this field of science, genuine Mineralogy Barnstar.

Thank you very much again.

Regards, Chris.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits in Scandinavian_Mountains#Geology. The uplift question seems a bit tricky and I have tried avoid name-bombing the article (yes, I don't think Wikipedia is expected to look like a review paper). Your inline remarks were quite useful and I hope I have addressed all of your concerns. If not I would be glad you added new remarks. I have tried to limit the scope of the geology section to avoid turning it into a geology of Norway article. Perhaps it also time for a specific article on the Scandinavian Caledonides? What do you think? Lappspira (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what that long Persian phrase actually meant. Pretty sure it wasn't hematite! RockMagnetist(talk) 22:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the words in Google Translate and I think the Arabic and Persian text may have been correct translations for hematite. The Persian version is long because it lists several synonyms. That's why I opted for the "not a dictionary" reason for my deletion. GeoWriter (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeoWriter -- I was just looking at the latest edit to Permian Basin (North America), and I saw a red link in the section Permian Basin (North America)#The Delaware Basin: the Ouachita–Marathon thrust belt. I changed the hyphen between "Ouachita" and "Marathon" to an en-dash, but it didn't turn the link blue. I did a little searching to see if there were an article with a slightly different title, but the only thing I could find was Ouachita Mountains. In that article I found a link to Ouachita orogeny. I wonder if one of those two articles is close enough to "Ouachita–Marathon thrust belt" so that it could be a blue link. If not, then there is an article to be written when someone has time. ;)  – Corinne (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this point. As the paragraph is describing the structural feature, the Delaware Basin, I think the emphasis is more on the surface topography than the geological history, so I favour linking to the Ouachita Mountains (a landform feature, of course) rather than the Ouachita orogeny (a set of events and processes that produced the landforms). I added a piped wiki link in the Permian Basin (North America) article. I hope my edit was helpful.

By the way, the Ouachita Mountains article links to the Ouachita orogeny article anyway, so that base is also covered indirectly. GeoWriter (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeoWriter - I just stumbled across the article Boso Triple Junction. I made a few copy-edits as I was reading, but there was one word that I thought was a little unclear. I added a "clarification needed" tag and a hidden note to editors (visible in edit mode). I also noticed that there has been a tag at the top of the article saying "This article does not cite any sources" since 2009. If you have time, I wonder if you could clarify that one spot where I placed the "clarification needed" tag, and, if you feel like working on the article, maybe you could find some sources. I wonder if you think this article is worth nominating for improvement at WP:TAFINOM.  – Corinne (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Corinne. Thanks for your message. I made some changes to the article, added a source reference etc. I hope my edits have improved the article. I'll need to think about the clarification issue that your raised about the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami paragraph. GeoWriter (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your edits have improved the article! Thanks for spending time on it.  – Corinne (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some tags at the top of Triple junction. Is this an article you might consider working on in the near future? If not, should I nominate it as an article to be improved at WP:TAFINOM? Do you think additional material and sources exist that could be added to it?  – Corinne (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Actually, it probably wouldn't be selected because it gets only 91 daily page views.  – Corinne (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoWriter,

I am quite puzzled by your removal of the sentence as below, from the Calthemite page.

"The chemistry related to dissolution of dolomite rock and deposition of calthemites (secondary deposits) in mines and tunnels within dolomite rock, is not covered on this page."

Dolomite is CaMg(CO₃)₂ and the chemistry which dissolves and then the secondary precipitation can be as calcium carbonate, calcite, Mg-calcite, aragonite, huntite and hydromagnesite. Obviously calcium carbonate and aragonite are the same chemical composition, with a different morphology. The point is that to detail the different chemical reactions to fully cover dolomite dissolution and precipitation possibilities as these other minerals (Calcium Carbonate, Mg-calcite, huntite, hydromagnesite) would take a lengthy wiki page on its own. Hence my sentence above as previously added to the wikipage on calthemite.

Regarding your comment of a limitation, I have changed the sentence to read as follows in the calthemite page.

"The chemistry related to dissolution of dolomite rock and deposition of calthemites (secondary deposits) in mines and tunnels within dolomite rock, is not detailed on this page." The word "covered" is changed to detailed. I am sure that if someone has the time to spend fully detailing the chemistry for the above then they can easily remove the sentence above. RegardsNewcaves (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If particular content is not yet on Wikipedia or is too detailed to be covered in an article, editors do not usually explicitly state "X is not covered on this page". I think this is because such a statement discourages further editing. I think that too many editors are likely to interpret this as a limitation on the scope of the article and treat it as effectively meaning "do not add content about X to this article". If your restriction was not there, I think that editors would more likely to add content. These are the reasons why I removed your "is not covered on this page" text.

The Wikipedia best practice guideline for encouraging editors to add new content on specific topics is to create red links. Therefore, in your case, I suggest a red link of something along the lines of Dolomite dissolution and precipitation to encourage creation of a new article, or a red link to a potential new section in the Dolomite mineral article, would be a better solution to this issue, along with removal of any references in the Calthemite article as to what is not (yet) included, covered or detailed in the article. GeoWriter (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoWriter

Much appreciate your comments and words of wisdom. I think that is a good idea regarding a potential new page. It certainly would be the chemistry which occurs far more frequently in natural caves in Dolomite rock as a "Speleothem", hence I am reluctant to add this to the calthemite section which only covers secondary deposits in man-made mines and tunnels excavated into dolomite rock. Not convinced that this would fit directly into any existing Wikipedia page. Hence the idea of a red link to a possible new page sounds great. I will chew this over a little more and alter the sentence in the next day or so. Thanks again for your valued comments and wisdom. Kind regardsNewcaves (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor point, but would you mind clarifying the point of your refinement to the seabed topography links? They still link to the same place, but now bypass the redirect created specifically for that purpose. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the redirect. I'll revert my edits. GeoWriter (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geowriter,

Some time back you added a Globalisation Note

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (October 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

to the "Dolostone" page. I thought your note was very appropriate and was disappointed to see that another editor had removed this note. Until recently I had never heard of the word "dolostone" despite being a serious caver/speleologist for over 50 years (and still active in speleology). I have caved in karst areas of dolomite rock on numerous occasions and studied much literature regarding dolomite and limestone karst as well as speleothems within. Anyway in that time I had never come across the term "dolostone" because the international speleological community call the rock "dolomite" or "dolomite rock". This lead to lengthy discussion with Vsmith, which you can view on his talk page, and I am hoping that he will change the title of the page to "Dolomite (rock)" which is more widely accepted by the international "geological" and "speleological" communities. I do personally think that the dolomite mineral page and the dolomite rock page should be combined, but there appears to be some staunch supporters intent on keeping the pages separate. Anyway if the "dolostone" page title was changed to "Dolomite (rock)" then I would be prepared to add more to the page. I note that you have been a regular contributor to the dolostone page and wanted to say that I agree with you, that the page should have a more global structure, terms, recognised name. This may then lead the way to chemistry relating to speleothem deposition in Dolomite caves (speleothems) and Dolomite mines (calthemites) being added. Kind regards Newcaves (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the globalize template back in October 2016 because the text (i.e. the article's perspective) was too US-centric. The text was dominated by an American debate focusing on the opinions of the US Geological Survey and the American Geological Institute on whether they preferred the term dolomote, dolomite rock or dolostone. Unfortunately, the hard-coded message displayed by the globalize template refers to examples and perspective. I presume V. Smith ignored my point about the text's perspective and assumed instead that it was an issue connected to 3 of the 4 photos being of American examples. I have no problem with V.Smith's good faith edit because I think the dolostone article will probably become less US-biased anyway, as the text is expanded and improved. GeoWriter (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could support the renaming of the dolostone article to become dolomite (rock). I think it is really unfortunate that dolomite rock and dolomite mineral seem to have been made "confusable" probably since the day that dolomite rock was first discovered. If only dolostone had caught on as a popular term...

I do not support merging the dolostone/dolomite rock and the dolomite (mineral) articles. GeoWriter (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geology of the Baltic Sea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Last ice age. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeoWriter – I was just looking at the latest edits to Karst, and I saw that an editor had made quite a few changes to the article. While I am not an expert, it seemed to me that the edits were all made in good faith and most seemed all right, but I wondered about a few things:

1) The editor removed mention of several karst formations such as those in the U.S. and the Philippines, as unsourced. I thought perhaps the information was pertinent enough that perhaps sources could be found.

2) The editor added some material. While I cannot judge the accuracy of the content, I felt the wording could be improved, so I did some re-wording in this edit. If you feel further changes need to be made, please feel free to make them.

3) The editor re-arranged some material and made new section headings. I am not an expert in writing articles, but I have edited so many articles that I felt something was not right. For example, in most articles – for example, as in Cliff – Etymology is one of the first sections after the lead, and usually, though not always (see Basalt), is a section unto itself. It seems to me that "Etymology" does not belong within a section headed "History of karst studies". Also, that new section now has only two sub-sections: "Etymology" and "Early karst studies". There is no mention of later karst studies, so I wonder if that new section heading, "History of karst studies", is even necessary.

You are more of the expert in both the subject matter and writing articles, so I'll let you sort this out.  – Corinne (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Corinne for your comments about the karst article. I checked the recent edits by User:Lappspira (who does good work on Wikipedia geology articles), and I made some changes to the section hierarchy and also the section titles. I hope my edits have improved the article. I think the removal of karst formations in e.g. the US seems reasonable to me because they are still included in the main article: List of notable karst areas anyway. GeoWriter (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You left a comment on Wikipedia's "Pyromorphite" page, requesting non-primary sources for the citations of Klaproth and Hausmann that I posted.

Would a non-primary source in German be acceptable?

My source is: http://tw.strahlen.org/typloc/pyromorphit.html

This Web page was created by and is maintained by Dr. Thomas Witzke, as stated on his home page: http://tw.strahlen.org/index.html

Witzke is a German mineralogist and geochemist, as stated in the German Wikipedia article about him: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Witzke

Would it be okay to cite Dr. Witzke's Web page on pyromorphite as a non-primary source ?

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Mount Tambora for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm messaging to ask whether you might be interested in being an editor for the WikiJournal of Science (www.WikiJSci.org)? It's a journal modelled on the successful Wikipedia-integrated medical journal (www.WikiJMed.org). The editorial board is covers a range of fields and expertise.

It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of science (articles often get >100,000 views per year).

Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Based on my experiences, time commitment is pretty flexible. An editor would generally devote 2-10 hours per month to inviting suitable submissions and organise their external peer review:

• Identify fully missing Wikipedia topics and invite academics to write broad review articles on them (e.g. this)
• Identify important, but poorly covered topics and invite experts to update or overhaul them (e.g. this)
• Invite authors of good Wikipedia pages to put their articles through external peer review (like this)
• Possibly implement some figure or gallery review articles (e.g this and this)

Hopefully it will help to get experts, academics and professionals to contribute content to the encyclopedia via a more familiar and cv-rewarding academic journal format.

Anyway, let me know if it's the sort of thing that might interest you. PS. A relevant article in Science.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC), edited 11:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I realised I missed out some links in the message above, so I've taken the liberty of editing the previous message. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo), thanks for the invitation, but I am not interested in participating. I wish you good luck with the journal. GeoWriter (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Good luck with your various wiki endeavours! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the discussion at Talk:Moldavite, please don't add confusion by referring to an ip by a non-existing username. That only adds confusion. If the ip creates an account and starts using it, that will be fine - but it is up to that ip to do so and to make the connection on the talk page. If i have missed something and there is such a registered user - please enlighten me :) Vsmith (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - there is such a user ... but the discussion on talk is from an ip - my apologies. However, we still don't need to refer to the ip as the user ... that just adds confusion ... and yeah my confusion - sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to write the article geology of Finland, you are welcome to take a look. –Lappspira (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GeoWriter

I saw your contributions for the article "Cryptodepression". Now: My English is not so good... and I wanted to ask you for a favour

Could you make a correction? a cryptodepression is not simply a LAKE... A cryptodepression is only the PART of the lake which lies UNDER 0 meter altitude....

Greetings, --Marie de France (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have changed the article. Is it correct now? GeoWriter (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help on Geology of Malta - really makes a difference to have expert input. It's a great joy translating pieces like this as I learn so much along the way! :) Beckettnoti (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the translation. It's good to include information translated into English from other language Wikipedias. GeoWriter (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GeoWriter, I see you have edited many geology articles so I would like to have your opinion on this renaming proposal: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_17#Magmatism_not_igneous_petrolog. Thank you! Mamayuco (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for adding the photos to Nevado del Ruiz. Only now I see that the journal of the UNAL is CC licensed, so that means I have hundreds of images to upload to go with the many articles I've written already and many more in the pipeline.

Oh even better, also the journal of the UIS is CC 4.0. Amazing, cool. That will boost the articles greatly. Good weekend, Tisquesusa (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tisquesusa, I'm glad that the photos that I found and added to the Nevado del Ruiz article may improve that article, and that they alerted you to the journals of UNAL (and UIS) being CC-BY. I want to warn you to be very careful about using images from these journals. It is very important to remember that even though the journal and articles are CC-BY, many of the images may not be CC-BY. If an image in a CC-BY article has been copied from another previously published article (which is not also CC-BY), or if the creator of an image is not one of the authors of the article, then that image is not CC-BY. The copyright of the image overrides the copyright of the article and journal. I'm sure that you will be able to find some images that are CC-BY, and which are therefore allowed on Wikipedia, but perhaps not as many as you want. I'm looking forward to seeing what you find. GeoWriter (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the warning. That makes sense. So for instance the author of an article uses a geological map, puts some lines on it and attributes it as "based on map X published by [non CC] author Y", then that image cannot be used. Got it. It all boils down to the author then, if they properly attribute the images. But I have seen many diagrams and some maps already created by the authors themselves, so that is good. My policy in using refs has always been focused on open access journals, but especially on CC journals, reasoning that if we promote using the open and free access model and CC licensing, we should help promote those that use the same model. I have limited access to subscription journals anyway. Cheers. Tisquesusa (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of deleting the reference (Phillips, 1840) that I added to the article "Mezozoic"?

If you want references that states that Phillips was the author, here's a reference that's impeccable:

Felix M. Gradstein, James G. Ogg, Alan G. Smith, ed., A Geologic Time Scale 2004(Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press), p. 44. https://books.google.com/books?id=rse4v1P-f9kC&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q=Mesozoic%20Phillips&f=false

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VexorAbVikipædia, my edit summary of my deletion in the Mesozoic article was: "removed source reference "Penny Cyclopaedia" that did not mention Phillips in its text (or, if Phillips was the unnamed author of that source reference's text, it would be an unnecessary primary source) - Phillips is already named in the other source "OnlineEtDict" (a secondary source)". Is there any particular part of that edit summary that you would like me to try to clarify for you?

I deleted your source reference because it appears to be a primary source. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source that uses secondary sources (which are preferred more than primary sources). The link you provided states "As many systems or combinations of organic forms as are clearly traceable in the stratified crust of the globe, so many corresponding terms (as Palæozoic, Mesozoic, Kainozoic, &c.) may be made,… ". Both you and Gradstein et al. state that the Penny Cyclopaedia article is written by Phillips, which makes it a primary source (but I found no attribution to Phillips using your linked url for Penny Cyclopaedia). Where does Penny Cyclopaedia state (a) that Phillips is the author of the Penny Cyclopaedia article? and (b) that Phillips is the first person to coin the term "Mesozoic"? So, it appears to be a primary source and also not even a suitably informative source.

Gradstein et al. are allowed to use that primary source to conclude and publish whatever they want, for example that Phillips first coined the term "Mesozoic" in the Penny Cyclopedia article, but if you as a Wikipedia editor do so, without citing the Gradstein secondary source or another secondary source, it could look like you are using the Penny Cyclopedia primary source but also possibly doing original research by inferring things not actually stated in the source, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

I agree that the Gradstein et al. secondary source is fine. Why did you not use the Gradstein et al. secondary source yourself? I suggest that Gradstein et al. could be added as a second secondary source in addition to the Online Etymology Dictionary source reference that already specifically mentions Phillips as the originator of the term "Mesozoic".

GeoWriter (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of primary sources. The best evidence that John Phillips coined the term "Mesozoic" is the original text in which he coined it. In this case, that text appeared in the Penny Cyclopaedia.

That the Online Etymological Dictionary (OEtyD) claims that Phillips coined the term "Mesozoic" means nothing: ultimately, the OEtyD must rely on some source (which it does not cite), which in turn must ultimately rely on Phillips' article in the Penny Cyclopædia – because that's where Phillips coined the term "Mesozoic".

Regarding evidence that John Phillips wrote the article, see:

Phillips, John (1841) Figures and Descriptions of the Palaeozoic Fossils of Cornwall, Devon, and West Somerset (London, England: Longman, Green, Brown, & Longmans), p. 160 footnote.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ciE-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA160#v=onepage&q&f=false

In this source, Phillips himself states – only a year after his article on "Palæozoic series" was published – that he wrote it. The footnote reads as follows:

" 'Penny Cyclopædia,' Articles GEOLOGY, PALÆOZOIC ROCKS, SALIFEROUS SYSTEM, &c."

If you want me to include Gradstein et al. in addition to (Phillips, 1840), I would gladly do so. But I think that there is no harm to citing (Phillips, 1840) and there is much good: it allows geologists and historians of science to see exactly what Phillips wrote – without interpretation (and possible distortion) by later authors.

Many reputable encyclopedias cite primary sources; I don't see why Wikipedia can't do so as well – particularly when (as I just suggested) I could also cite a secondary source (or two or even three), attesting that Phillips wrote the 1840 article in the Penny Cyclopædia.

I do hope that this would constitute a reasonable and acceptable compromise.

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VexorAbVikipædia, adding Gradstein et al. as a secondary source reference seems to me to be more than sufficient as a replacement for both the Online Etymology secondary source and the Penny Cyclopaedia primary source. I agree that this is a good idea.

I think the intention of Wikipedia is to allow primary sources when secondary sources are unavailable to the editors, not to use primary sources instead of available secondary sources to save researchers time and effort in their search for primary sources.

Your message above cites another primary source by Phillips (Palaeozoic Fossils) that you are using to confirm that Phillips wrote the apparently uncredited/anomymous primary source article in Penny Cyclopaedia. This suggests that the author is uncredited in Penny Cyclopaedia. The Penny Cyclopaedia author does mention the word "Mesozoic" but this mention seems to me to have no value in establishing the history of this term's creation. Citing primary sources in Wikipedia is one thing but citing primary sources that do not even support a claim is another. Phillips is not even claiming in Penny Cyclopaedia to have invented the term and does not describe it an any detail. So how do we know from the Penny Cyclopaedia source that Phillips invented the word and that its first use occurred in that article? It is just a passing reference to the set of three geological eras for completeness's sake. Perhaps it could prove meaningful or useful to geologists and historians of science somehow, but I doubt they will be searching Wikipedia for primary sources if they want to do new research into the term's creation. We both know and agree that the etymology has been studied already by Gradstein et al. anyway, and they cite Penny Cyclopaedia as their primary source. You seem to want to repeat their research process on Wikipedia. I suggest that the Gradstein et al. secondary source is enough for the Mesozoic article in Wikipedia and anyone can then use that secondary source to find the primary source.

If you want to shift Wikipedia's purpose from being a tertiary source encyclopedia based on secondary sources towards becoming some sort of store of primary source material, perhaps you should seek concensus for that across the entire Wikipedia editing group. Also, perhaps Wikisource many be of interest to you - it a sister project for storing primary source material.

GeoWriter (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I know of at least two instances where my citations of primary sources in Wikipedia were used by authors. First, in the latest edition of The Art of Electronics by Paul Horowitz and Winfield Hill, it appears that they just copied and pasted my primary source citations regarding an electronic circuit that's called a "flip-flop", attesting the invention of the circuit by Eccles and Jordan. Same sources, in the same order, worded, punctuated, and formatted in the same way. Also, my primary source citation on the Gibbs–Thomson equation was copied in a master's thesis. So authors are searching Wikipedia for primary sources.

As I said, I would like to cite both Gradstein et al. and Phillips. Gradstein et al. provides a secondary source, showing that a qualified expert in the field has reviewed the evidence and has determined that Phillips did indeed coin the word "Mesozoic". I think that the article by Phillips should be cited not only for reference by scholars, but also for the very reasons that you stated for not including it: the term "Mesozoic" really wasn't intended to specify any particular geological era or period; it was proposed merely as name for some possible future division of the geological record. So if anyone contends that Phillips intended the Mesozoic to extend from 252 to 66 MYA (or such), they can read Phillips' own article, where they'll see that he had no such intention.

I do agree with you that secondary sources are essential: they provide the considered judgment of a competent expert in the field; they thus avoid the danger of including original research in Wikipedia.

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you changing barites to barite? WP:NOTBROKEN discourages "fixing" redirects, and anyway baryte is surely the preferred spelling, especially in non-USA English. DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, I was not primarily trying to "fix" a redirect for barites, I replaced it with an existing (and in my opinion) better redirect for barite. I was trying to correct what I believe to be a spelling error. Also, "barites" didn't seem suitable in a list of mined deposits. It jars with me in the same way that "golds, silvers, zincs, irons and platinums" would jar.

Are there any relable secondary sources that show "barites" is a synonym of barite, baryte or barytes i.e. that show that barites is a widely accepted correct spelling and not a spelling error nor merely the plural form of "barite"? I have searched online but I haven't found any such sources yet. Therefore, I have taken the view that this is probably a spelling error and therefore is broken in the sense of being incorrect, in which case, either do not use a redirect or alter the redirect seems to apply (see WP:BRINT immediately below WP:NOTBROKEN). If you can provide a source or sources that show that barites is a legitimate correct spelling, I'll look at them.

Barite redirects to baryte, therefore it would be inappropriate to change barite to baryte in Wikipedia articles, because WP:NOTBROKEN, but I'm not sure what you mean by "and anyway".

GeoWriter (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barite (British spelling Baryte) is BaSO₄, see here. Barites (British spelling Barytes) is a series (Barite group) of minerals, see here and here, e.g. Radiobarite. They are not exactly the same, so there should be two articles to explain the difference. Tisquesusa (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Let me try to be clearer - you are imposing US-spelling contrary to both IMA nomenclature and EngVar. Barites was preferred by some early chemists, according to the OED. DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the OED. Is that early use still relavant/not obsolete? Is the term barites still in current use for barite/baryte by reliable secondary sources? GeoWriter (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you imposing a non-standard, US-centric spelling contrary to both Wikipedia policy and IMA nomenclature? DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, I'm confused. Who do you think is trying to impose a US-centric spelling?

GeoWriter (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, barites may have been used 200 years ago but is it still valid now? Is barites still in current use (or has it even been used in the last century) for barite/baryte by reliable secondary sources? Is the reference in OED like the obsolete term "dephlogisticated air", which was an early name for oxygen, which would not be used now apart from in recent "history of chemistry" texts?

DuncanHill, I assume that your comments "you are imposing US-spelling contrary to both IMA nomenclature and EngVar" and "Why are you imposing a non-standard, US-centric spelling contrary to both Wikipedia policy and IMA nomenclature" is addressed to Tisquesusa, because my edits of barites are not imposing US spelling, except for the sake of preserving edit time precedence of existing spellings, which to me seems correct under WP:ENGVAR.

Tisquesusa, "Baryte group" is already mentioned very briefly in the Baryte article, but it may eventually become appropriate to have a separate new article for the group if enough text justifies it. Meanwhile, I suggest that redirects could be created for Baryte group ---> Baryte and for Barite group ---> Baryte, for UK and US spellings respectively. Because barites can refer to either (a) an early spelling of baryte/barite, or (b) a member of the baryte/barite group of minerals. If a Baryte group article is created, any occurrences of baryte etc in Wikipedia articles would then have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Probably, some occurrences would redirect to "baryte" and fewer occurrences would redirect to "baryte group".

GeoWriter (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GeoWriter, all my comments on this page are directed at you and nobody else. Baryte is the IMA approved name, barite is a variant used in the USA. You are using barite in articles where US spelling is inappropriate. By the way, there is no need to keep pinging me, I have a watchlist and know how to read it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Also, please stop deliberately confusing things by pretending that I am arguing for barites. I am not and never have. I was questioning why you were changing from one non-standard form to another. DuncanHill (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC) That last comment was directed at you, GeoWriter, in case you are confused. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edit of "barites" to "barite" in the Geology of Alderley Edge on 7 August 2018 at 11:41 was not optimal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geology_of_Alderley_Edge&type=revision&diff=853857497&oldid=853857397

I accept that "baryte" is the appropriate spelling in a UK article. I did not change "baryte" to "barite" in that article. "Barites" went unchallenged in that article for more than 11 years, from its introduction on 28 February 2007 by another editor until my change from "barites" to "barite" on 7 August 2018. I regret changing "barites" to "barite" instead of "baryte" in this article.

I changed "barites" to "barite" in 3 other articles on 7 August 2018 between 11:42 and 11:45. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghanistan&type=revision&diff=853857650&oldid=853797927

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_India&type=revision&diff=853857775&oldid=853809466

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geography_of_India&type=revision&diff=853857932&oldid=853686144

(Following comments are all addressed to DuncanHill):

I thought your comments referred to all 4 of my edits, so at first I did not pick up on the inappropriate use of "barite" in the UK article hence some of my confusion. It would have been helpful if you had mentioned the "Geology of Alderley Edge" article in your first message.

Your clarification that your comments addressed to "you" are in fact addressed to me only is helpful because it removes my confusion that they may have been addressed to the other participant in the discussion (Tisquesusa), or to both Tisquesusa and myself. I was confused because e.g. Tisquesusa was using American spellings as a preference.

Your first comment "Why are you changing barites to barite? WP:NOTBROKEN discourages "fixing" redirects" gave me the impression that you objected to me changing "barites" to "barite" because redirects should not be changed if they are valid. Your comment gave me the impression that you thought that "barites" is a valid spelling, hence my questions about sources for "barites".

I agree that "baryte" is IMA's preferred spelling and can be used in UK-centric aricles. Are you claiming that the spelling "barite" is not permitted in Wikipedia articles about India and Afghanistan and the IMA spelling "baryte" must be used? Are you suggesting wholesale change to "baryte" across Wikipedia to adopt IMA's spelling? If so, I suggest that you should seek WP:CONCENSUS (which is a Wikipedia policy) across the Wikipedia editor community about such a change to "baryte" and a banning of "barite".

Your first message began: "Why are you changing barites to barite? WP:NOTBROKEN discourages "fixing" redirects". I thought that was your only objection to my edits, and I replied in good faith trying to explain why I made those changes. Now you are saying "please stop deliberately confusing things by pretending that I am arguing for barites. I am not and never have." I think that you claiming that I am "deliberately confusing things by pretending" is, in my opinion, probably against WP:CIVILITY (which is a Wikipedia policy) and against WP:GOODFAITH because you seem to me to be assuming that I was editing in bad faith. I was actually editing in good faith. Confusion does not excuse your comment.

In response to your question "Why are you imposing a non-standard, US-centric spelling contrary to both Wikipedia policy and IMA nomenclature?", I think that your claim that my edits, which changed "barites" to "barite" (which both redirect to "barytes" anyway) somehow imposes "non-standard, US-centric spelling contrary to both Wikipedia policy and IMA nomenclature" is unjustified exaggeration. I'm not imposing anything, nor am I trying to impose anything about the spelling of this barium mineral's name. I think that your comment is probably against WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH. In the Geology of Alderley Edge article, after I changed "barites" to "barite" you changed "barite" to "baryte" and I accept that change, so I'm not imposing, i.e. forcing, "barite". See also my comment above about "barites" going unchallenged for more than 11 years since it was introduced into that article by another editor.

In response to your edit summary for one of your messages in this section of my Talk page (7 August 2018 at 14:50) "why are you deliberately ignoring both ENGVAR and IMA nomenclature, and why are you refusing to address the issue when asked?: I have not deliberately ignored anything and I have not refused to address the issue. I think that your comment is probably against WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH.

I wish I had not changed 4 occurrences of "barites" to "barite".

By the way, I think that spelling rules are part of Wikipedia:Manual of style which is a Wikipedia guideline, not a Wikipedia policy.

GeoWriter (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________________________

Tisquesusa, barytes is a synonym of baryte and therefore also a synonym of barite, See https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/barytes .

GeoWriter (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A plural is a "synonym" of the singular form? Eh no. The Collins dictionary may have an authority about documenting (the use of) words, but not about their meaning in geology/mineralogy. That is why I linked to Mindat and Webmineral, sites that are standard use on Wikipedia. It happens with more mineral (groups); salts =/= salt (halite, commonly).

Indeed what you said before should happen; decide on a case-by-case basis. That I prefer in any case, because it means actually caring for the pages and words and not simply massively and blindly changing links.

I have no issue with British vs American spellings. Personally I would always write barite and baryte even looks strange and confusing, but that is personal. In general I would stick to the version used throughout the article and/or the topic. A baryte occurrence in the UK would use baryte and a barite occurrence in the US barite. It is not that hard.

For the redirects; the double redirect is normally not done and should be solved. So if barite redirects to baryte, then barites should also redirect to baryte, not barite and then barite to baryte. Tisquesusa (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tisquesusa, your linked Mindat web page states "Barite (Barytes). Barite (or baryte) is a mineral composed primarily of barium sulfate". How does this show that "barytes" or "barites" are names for the group of minerals?

Your linked Webmineral web page mentions "Barite Group" and "barite", but it does not mention "barites" or "barytes" or "baryte". How does this show that "barytes" or "barites" are names for the group of minerals?

Barytes is a singular noun and it is a synonym of "baryte" and "barite". Barytes is also the plural form of the singular noun "baryte". (The nouns "pyrites" and "pyrite" behave in a similar way in English usage). I think that you have provided sources that only support the plural form (when it means "more than one example of the mineral baryte"). I think that your sources actually support the definition in the Collins dictionary, but your sources do not support your claim that "barytes" or "barites" is the name of the group of minerals that includes "barytes" (singular form) or "baryte" or "barite". Do you have any other sources that you think support your claim about the name of the mineral group?

GeoWriter (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just want to let you know that somewhere in the text Chabazite is said to be triclinic. Regards Ole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.173.22.163 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Trophy for a Profi

Dear GeoWriter ! I am pleasantly surprised seeing your enthusiasm and incredible knowledge in the sphere of geology. Few people can boast both, even being nominally experts and majoring in this subject :)) I appreciate your keenness in finding sources to back up your opinion. What is more, I am sure you deserve much more than just this modest award as it is curiosity and desire to know more that makes Wikipedia go round and round annually :)) Good luck to you in everything! Marina Melik-Adamyan (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. GeoWriter (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to "Mica", and want to explain my choice of section title. To me "References" and "Sources" are a bit too close/synonymous, so I chose "Notes", as suggested by the MOS. Perhaps we might compromise on "Citations", or something else that is more specific? —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Also, you might want to float the message at the top of this page to the right instead of the left, or put a {{Clear}}/{{Clear|left}} below it, as in wide browser windows both the text written after the message and the TOC float beside it—not an ideal presentation aesthetically. (N.B.: This is an attempt at friendly, helpful, and constructive criticism, not an attack, so I hope it comes across as such.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of observing the way in which very many editors format citations (for articles which do NOT use the very "notes-centric" Harvard citation style), leads me to conclude that the "Notes" section should contain additional informative text (e.g. explanations or examples) that for some reason (e.g. too detailed for the general reader) is not included in the main text of a Wikipedia article. I think that "References" sections should give only the publication details of source references cited in the article text. I think a good split between "References" and "Notes" is well-illustrated by e.g. List of tallest mountains in the Solar System. My view can be summarised as "put references in references sections and put notes in notes sections".

I think the citation for the USGS web page that is currently the only entry in the "Sources" section of the "Mica" article is problematic, regardless of what the section headings are, or should be. It is a poor citation and it leaves a reader with far too much work to do to verify any claims that it was intended to support. I suggest the optimal solution would be to analyse the content of the USGS web page currently linked in the "Sources" section and convert it to much more helpful and sentence-specific inline citations. (I think that was the situation when the original edits for this source were made back in 2011 but they have been removed over the years). The USGS citations would then appear along with all the other existing citations in the References section. Then the "Sources" section should be removed. (Even in its currently vague state, there seems to be nothing preventing the USGS web page from being converted immediately into a very basic but better, standard format, "cite web" reference). Current reference 12 ("Isinglass curtains are referred to in the 1943 musical Oklahoma's song The Surrey with the Fringe on Top.") should be moved to a new Notes section because it is a note not a reference.

Thanks for the tip about the "clear" syntax for page formatting. I'll investigate that further. — GeoWriter (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created a new redirect for Seismic buffers [[Earthquake engineering#Seismic vibration control]] to save you the time to go into three additional articles. Peter Horn User talk 18:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. GeoWriter (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being buffed for an attempt at GA status - see here (Talk:Paleocene/GA1). I am the reviewer. No geological period articles have been audited as a GA or FA so getting as much consensus on the format of the first one would go a long way to getting a template of sorts for the rest. All input greatly appreciated (as a psychiatrist I don't have much expertise in geology :)) cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good article and I have made a few changes to it. GeoWriter (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - thanks for this. Accidentally got the "less than" and "more than" symbols confused :) Grutness...wha? 02:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on articles for units in New Mexico. Could you find time to review them? Draft:Moppin Complex Draft:Maquinita Granodiorite Draft:Vadito Group. I'm probably going to be adding many more as I wait out the coronavirus. :( --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kent, Thanks for creating these articles. I have made some changes to these articles and I hope my contributions have helped. GeoWriter (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I've seen one change so far and it was good. I'll continue watching and improving these pages. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When i first uploaded the image, i was unsure about the copyright status about it. This is why i put that file under the discussion so i want to know how that kind of ambiguous files works on Wikipedia.

It took me your argument to convince me that these files should be considered copyright violation, regardless of ambiguity and should be reworked into an original image by myself. I admit that i'm a lazy person in real life, but in order to do such work like editing Wikipedia, i should do something and not demanding people to do my work. I get it that behavior is unacceptable. I should do my own work!

Before that argument was made by you, i have already replaced that copyrighted image with an CC-licensed original image, taking back my speedy deletion request to continue a needed discussion (needed because i want to know how) and moved the image to the bottom of the page to get a needed attention. With the attention and discussion it deserves, i could get the knowledge i deserve.

Now, i'm wrapping that discussion up and i learned what i should have done. I have removed that image from Carboniferous and put that image for a speedy deletion (again, made by myself). With that i've learned how to become a better Wikipedian, and i honestly will not do these things like that again. I do not want to become the person i have used to be in the past, i must grow up from this point. Thank you for helping me learn to become a good person! SMB​99​thx_{this might be ugly} 03:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that my comments on the Carboniferous map image's discussion page have been useful and helpful to you. Some aspects of copyright can be complicated but I find the safest and easiest rule is "if your are not sure, do not upload the image". I wish you good luck for creating content in Wikipedia with allowed copyright status in future. GeoWriter (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoWriter, I thought I would let you know that there is a merge proposal for Southern England Chalk Formation and Downland being discussed on this talk page. I am not the original proposer, but I thought that you might (or might not) be interested in commenting, given your expertise and the edits you've made to related articles. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. I'll take a look at the proposal. GeoWriter (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for your many improvements to the article. It would be nice to bring it up to GA status but there is still some work to do.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kent, thanks for your message. Thanks for your improvements to that article too. Getting that article to GA status is a good idea. I have plenty of information that I could add. GeoWriter (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only making sure the information is solid and complete, but ensuring the information is well-organized and focused. I can do more with that. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kent, I have noticed that you use plutonic rock names in the QAPF diagram (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basalt_qapf.png) that you created for the basalt article. I suggest that it would be better if volcanic rock names are used instead. The volcanic version of the QAPF diagram (side by side with the plutonic version for easy comparison) can be seen for example at http://www.atlas-hornin.sk/en/article/7/classification-principles . GeoWriter (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was working off what I could find at Wiki Commons. I'll see if I can find or generate a free use version that lists volcanic rocks. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That will also simplify the description, which is based on Philpott and Ague's field numbering. I can just say "basalt-andesite field" and then do a (probably better) explanation of how they are further distinguished (sodic versus calcic plagioclase).--Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the article is close to ready for a GA nomination. What else do you think needs to be done with the article first? Do you think it is worth calling for a peer review first? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you looking at Tuff as well. The article was one of the distressingly many rock type articles that quotes long sections of the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica verbatim. The language is beautifully elegant, wonderfully descriptive, terribly out of date, and often far off-topic. I try to salvage what I can with more modern sources. Still a lot to do on that particular article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revision of the article. The EB 1911 is an impressive document and we are fortunate to have it as a public domain source, but it's a pity and also a pitfall that much of it is now out-of-date. GeoWriter (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:GeoWriter,

I've just made an edit request to the semi-protected article Volcano. It is my first request of the kind and I'm not sure I'm following the right procedures. Care to take a look? Kind regards, Coel Jo (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Talk:Volcano. GeoWriter (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the rewrite of Ring of Fire! I think it's a huge improvement. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. GeoWriter (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way I could contact you privately about this? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kent, I apologise for my delayed response due to being offline for a couple of days (I checked and found that, unfortunately, you just missed me leaving Wikipedia by only three minutes). Do you still want to discuss this topic privately, or do you prefer to opt out of the topic (as you've mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology)? GeoWriter (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I pretty much aired everything in the end. Probably just as well it was done publicly. I'll continue to opt out, at least until I feel like I understand the debate better. I used to be active in a debunking community, and darned if a lot of the red flags didn't go up, yet there are also indications it's a legitimate controversy -- I think I really am just out of my depth on judging that. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. There are plenty of other uncontroversial articles to keep you busy. I look forward you seeing many more of your contributions. GeoWriter (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Working on Limestone now -- I more or less took a dare to bring it to Featured Article status. And then as I was getting really warmed up, it got picked for a Wiki Education Foundation course assignment. This will be interesting. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted a link to Speleothem by User:Anonymoustrib on the word "geology" in an article on (of all things) Electron paramagnetic resonance. Wut? I sense a COI or agenda of some kind here. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gahh. It's one of those Wiki Education class assignments. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GeoWriter. There is discussion here, #Pronunciation, in which you might be interested. Cheers, Awien (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, GeoWriter, but at this point I think I'm going to "back away slowly", especially in the face of the odour of meat puppetry that seems to emanate from the discussion at this point.

Something that might interest you. That stuff in the style guide about no respelling without IPA, and no respelling for foreign languages, was forced in there by a group of presumably students obviously in the same place in real life ganging up to impose their will. Their mission was explicitly to force Anglophones to learn the IPA by depriving them of any other help. I haven't rechecked the style guide recently, but before they started, it basically said "whatever works".

When WP was young, people discussed things in a spirit of figuring out what was the best way to go. Once that was replaced by interminable Wikilawyering, I left for a long time. I guess I'm off for another long time.

Best, Awien (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks for that background information about the history of IPA in Wikipedia. GeoWriter (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate all the help I can get on getting the history section of that article right. Be aware I'm planning some severe rewriting today or tomorrow of the "Orogenic cycle" section, which seems like a real hash at the moment. Amusing (in a sad way) that "tephrotectonics" appears to be a citogenetic term; I, too, cannot dredge up a single live article in Google Scholar using the term. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the Orogeny article. I'll stay clear of the Orogeny article for a while to give you an opportunity to do your section rewrite. I'll check my collection of books and articles for some details of the history of orogenic studies. GeoWriter (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section now tells something like a coherent story. It's no longer a pastiche of whatever statements about orogeny could be gleaned from a grab bag of sources. Some of the sources might have been worth salvaging, though; I'll likely go over it again. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Volcanic sublimate—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoWriter. I'm just letting you know Hoodoo Mountain has been nominated for FA in case you're interested. It needs more support within the next next three or four days. If not the FAC may be archived. Volcanoguy 21:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The description seemed awkward to me, 0 million years ago, not sure if that’s ok or not. Ffffrr (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ffffrr, I agree that this wording is awkward. I have changed the wording to "from 2.588 million years ago to the present", which I hope is an improvement. GeoWriter (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that’s fine Ffffrr (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeoWriter, I have a question regarding Tenerife involving the Köppen Climate Classification and its original meaning.

The Encyclopædia Britannica hosts the original description made by Köppen–Geiger regarding tropical and subtropical arid/desert climates.

According to the Encyclopedia and the original Köppen classification, this is the way to distinguish between tropical deserts. Well I will just stick to copy and paste:

 Most of Earth’s tropical, true desert (BW) climates occur between 15° and 30° latitude, at the poleward end of the Hadley cell circulation (see atmosphere). In the Köppen-Geiger-Pohl system, this climate is divided between the tropical desert (BWh) and subtropical desert (part of BWk) subtypes. https://www.britannica.com/science/tropical-and-subtropical-desert-climate

Taking account of the description found in the Encyclopædia Britannica, Tenerife applies to every of those categorizations to be considered as a tropical desert/steppe climate. I know my first edit had a note that was not appropiate as a source because I have said "temperature-wise" taking as a reference the A tropical climates. But what if we use this real source as a reference regarding the original Köppen-Geiger classification? Another Encyclopedic entry here. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For context: Your original claim (added in a note in the Tenerife article on 03 February 2022) was "The low altitude/coastal areas of the island have a dry Tropical climate yet they're too dry for any official Tropical categorization."'

According to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification map by Beck et al. (2018) in Nature Scientific Data, Tenerife has 6 climate zones: Aw (tropical savanna with dry winter), BSh (hot semi-arid), BSk (cold semi-arid), Csa (Mediterranean hot summer), Csb (Mediterranean warm/cool summer), Csc (Mediterranean cold summer). According to Agencia Estatal Meterologia's climate zone map, Tenerife has 5 climate zones: BSh, BSk, BWk, Csa and Csb. These two sources are easily verifiable but, unfortunately, they contradict each other.

I removed your "tropical" claim and I explained that only a few kilometres of Tenerife's north coast have an tropical climate of subtype Aw (based on the map in Nature Scientific Data). That map has no other tropical climate areas on the island. The AEMET map shows no A-type or Aw-subtype tropical climate zones on the island.

You have pointed me to an Encyclopdia Britannica article about climate type B (dry) and its subdivision into subtypes BWh (hot desert) and BWk (cold desert), which Encyclopedia Britannica also describes as "tropical and subtropical desert climate".

I think the word "tropical" is causing problems. In physical geography, the word "tropical" has at least two meanings. One meaning is tropical climate - Köppen climate type A and its subtypes. A second meaning is areas of Earth located between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. Tenerife is not in this tropical latitude zone. Tenerife is in the sub-tropical latitude zone. The Encyclopedia Britannica article seems to be using tropical and sub-tropical to refer to the second meaning (latitude not climate). A clue to their latitude-based approach is that they have articles Tropical and subtropical desert climate (BWh, part of BWk), Mid-latitude steppe and desert climate (BSh) and Tropical and subtropical steppe climate (BSk, part of BWk).

The Encyclopedia Britannica article may have been less confusing if it had a title of "climate of deserts in tropical and subtropical regions" instead of "tropical and subtropical desert climate". Only some parts of Earth's tropical latitude zone have a tropical climate. There are "tropical deserts" (see Wikipedia article Tropical desert) between or around the two tropic lines of latitude, but they have a dry (desert) climate (Köppen type B) not a tropical climate (Köppen type A). There are polar deserts at Earth's poles (Köppen type EF (icecap) climate). I think the Encyclopedia Britannica articles take the general fact that climate zones are roughly related to latitude but they then give the impression that the climate zones are more regular and parallel to latitude than they actually are. The Rocky Mountains of North America and the Andes Mountains of South America are examples of regions where mountains disturb this regularity of climate zones parallel to lines of latitude - in those mountain ranges the climate zones are more north-south rather than east-west.

A problem with using the Encyclopedia Britannica's climate articles as sources is that they do not mention Tenerife as an example of any climate types. The Encyclopedia Britannica articles can be used to support the definition of climate types in general but I do not see how they can support any specific claim about the climates of Tenerife, unless a Wikipedia editor does novel synthesis, which is a type of original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We can use sources that explicitly report something like "Tenerife has climate types X, Y, and Z". The article already has one cited source map (AEMET) and another available map source (Nature Scientific Data) that show the climate types of Tenerife. Unfortunately, the 2 map sources contradict each other slightly, but that is a different problem. GeoWriter (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoWriter: Thank you, this user has been trying to manipulate the literal definition of Koppen and others for months now, despite the several warnings I gave him. I'm thankful this received the attention it needed. Also, from the 1981-2010 AEMET map there is not even a single location on the Canaries where the climate is classified as Aw, nor any source that says so, so there's no excuse for this type of edit. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Average Portuguese Joe: As I wrote in my comments of 5 February above, a source - Beck et al. (2018) in Nature Scientific Data - does show tropical climate type Aw occurs on some parts of the north coast of Tenerife. I reverted TechnicianGB's edit about tropical climate in the Tenerife article because of the inaccurate location and extent and "tropical temperature-wise" claims, not because Aw tropical climates do not occur on Tenerife. GeoWriter (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoWriter: It's also worth noting that even though they used a number of climate models (WorldClim V1 and V2, CHELSA V1.2, and CHPclim V1), the climate of oceanic islands is not always easy to describe, and that's where meteorological agencies like AEMET stand out. The flaws of these models become apparent when data from a local station (unknown to the models) is revealed. Obviously I would not expect a union of three models to have long term data for all the stations in the world and neither would I expect it to be accurate for every geographical location on an island. But you cannot compare a world scale climate map made by six researchers and three climate models to a WMO state agency whose sole purpose is to describe the climate of a certain region. In my opinion, the official agency (in this case AEMET) should be the one dictating whether or not a certain type of climate is present.

I cannot load the full resolution on the world map but I assume it's the same as this one [9]. That blue crumb on the island apparently receives less than 300mm according to AEMET and thus is significantly far from a tropical classification. And as a side note, if there was ever the presence of a tropical climate on the Canaries it would be As, not Aw, as the "wet season" is in the winter months. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Average Portuguese Joe: There are some problems with the Beck et al. map, but at least the methodology has been published to allow people to see why the maps are not perfect. The methodology used by the AEMET seems to be unpublished. You claim that the AEMET map is better than the 1 km resolution model of Beck et al. TechnicianGB claims AEMET is worse than Beck. I don't know which is better because I do not know the assumptions/limitations of the AEMET map. I do not know enough to decide which is a better source. I'm not a climate expert, so I think that I cannot help more on this very detailed aspect of the Tenerife article. GeoWriter (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full map can be seen by directly downloading it from Commons (click open in Media Viewer and then Download original file) and then checking it with your PC's image opener, because any browser won't open that full scale map (this is regarding the question from above) as actually there is a bunch of coastline styled in blue and not just a dot unlike the "Spanish Köppen climate map" shows as it's actually hiding 90% of the Köppen A areas that appear on the large scale map.

@GeoWriter: I don't know exactly what to say, AEMET is of course the best source for Spanish climates yet they have some flaws sometimes, just as IPMA does for Portugal (to put an example) their main focus is not to make Köppen climate maps, as they're actually new in this and they've been doing it only on the past 2 Climate Atlas, I can reckon for example in SE Spain some areas styled as BWh which are actually BSh, that's why I was saying that a Scientifical Map made by scientists with a sole purpose should be more accurate, as AEMET is broadly doing everything and I don't think an extremely accurate Köppen map is inside their objectives. So I'm not completely sure. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoWriter: Hello GeoWriter and thanks for the fast reply. Yes I agree, although I have also wrote on that note that "The Köppen criteria for measuring a tropical climate, starts with the coldest winter month above 18ºC" and most of coastal Tenerife (and the Canaries in overall) match that criteria. That's the definition for real tropical climates, it starts temperature-wise. Although you are right because the following letter determines the precipitation and the Canaries are BSh or BWh even if they surpass 18ºC in all of their winter months, that's why I wrote "tropical temperature-wise" but you are right because that's basically WP:SYNTHESIS. The Köppen climate classification states that the A Tropical climates 1st must have the coldest month above 18ºC yet they also require much more rainfall.

On a side note, I have downloaded the Köppen updated 1980-2016 map (which you have mentioned above) and you are right, some parts of coastal Tenerife are shown as Tropical Savanna with Dry Winter (Aw) which makes sense because they have +18ºC in the coldest month and they receive enough rain to be classified as Aw. The AEMET Köppen map has some few leaks and it's not that specifical. After all, AEMET comprises a lot of meteorological departments, but the 1980-2016 Köppen map was made by nature scientists with this specific purpose, determining the zones of all around the world. So according to the official Köppen-Geiger climate classification map by Beck et al. (2018) in Nature Scientific Data, zooming in Tenerife we can see the Aw zone as you have mentioned above.

So based on this source, we can edit Tenerife's page adding this additional categorization based on this scientifical source, of course specifying only where it belongs to (as it's found in a limited area) replacing the AEMET source? The map shown by AEMET has a much lower resolution and it's not that specific. What do you think? Now the problem is that both sources slightly collide between each other but the Nature Scientific Data map seems way more accurate and scientifical. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnicianGB: The Beck et al. (2018) map is the map of that group of scientists. Why do you think it is the "official map"? How do you know that the AEMET map is much lower resolution? How do you know that the Beck et al. (2018) map is much more accurate and scientific? GeoWriter (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoWriter: Hello, well actually that Scientifical map has actually a much higher resolution (the image itself) than what AEMET has to offer in their website, as the maximum zoom-in is very low compared to that map. I wrote above the answer because why I think the AEMET map couldn't be that accurate, of course they are the most accurate source for Spanish climates, yet I don't think making a very accurate Köppen map is inside their objectives. Well "official" as they have adjusted it to newer data and it's made by scientists in a Scientific Journal, but as I can see it also has flaws for some other areas, then again the question is how accurate it is? Is the AEMET map more accurate after all? Unsure about both at this point! --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GeoWriter, just dropping by to let you know that I'm currently working on a revision of the Geologic time scale article that originally started as a result of this discussion. It started off as a revision of just the terminology section, but I feel like I can significantly improve the content and structure of the article by building upon and re-jigging what is currently in it. I saw your revisions on Cambrian to update it to the ICS v2022/02 chart and figure you might be interested in this as well. Your editing experience on Wiki would be a great help if you have the time. I just had admins update the Template:Period start and updated Template:Period start error to help with updates to the current ICS chart. Mikenorton and benniboi01 have indicated they may provide some help if/when they can. The draft I'm working on is currently located here if you are interested. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoWriter. I'm just letting you know Mount Price (British Columbia) has been nominated for FA in case you're interested. It will likely have to be archived in a few days without further reviews forthcoming. Volcanoguy 21:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The gift of Kainosite-(Y)
	A rare gift for your specialist help on the mining article, thanks for the expert input CT55555 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hot dry rock geothermal energy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reads much better - Thanks! If you have time, I'd love your input on Draft:QuakeAlertUSA EricFishers11 (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am a bit new to this (contributing geo-orientated content knowledge to Wikipedia) and am taking baby steps because there is so much that needs cleaning up. A bit of an intro - I am no vulcanologist (it has been a while since I was lectured by George Walker, who just loved volcanoes) - I am just a sedimentologist who has had a long career in the oil & gas sector. With climate change comes the need to speak with one voice and I would like to lend mine to help clean up some of the language so that people understand what is being talked about in the public domain. My recent entry was an attempt to achieve an irreducible definition of "unconventional reservoirs" (which you have reviewed) because the absence of definition is a source of confusion in the public domain. When people complain about fracking, they are talking about unconventional reservoirs, they just don't know it. If you look at unconventional oil, you will note that the definition is confused and is actually wrong (based on commercial permises, which are both ephemeral and geo-political not on immutable physical qualities) - when you look at unconventional gas, you get a stub - both have useful content but they are daughters of unconventional reservoirs (which are also referred to as unconventional resources). Separating out cause and effect is of high importance in public discourse and is currently confused and as a geologist, I owe it to public knowledge to clean up the definitions in the interests of pubic information (people can make their choices based on a common language and access to going deeper if they need to). I can merge the articles and bring the definitions up-to-date but that is hardly collaborative. How do you go about offering the insights you have to contribute to the greater good in Wikipedia?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guy WF Loftus, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has wiki projects, which are intended to encourage and enable collaboration on particular topics. I have found the geology project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology, particularly the Talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology, to be a useful way to start and continue collaboration. I recommend that you take a look at it. See you around. GeoWriter (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on the page Hannegan caldera, you helped a lot! BhamBoi (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. GeoWriter (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I first need to start off with saying thank you for editing the page Francevillian B Formation. I have had the idea of adding information about the Natural Nuclear Reactor Oklo Mine to it as a sub-section of Geology. Should I add it? Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the uranium mineralisation in the Francevillian strata (e.g. Oklo) occurs in the upper part of the Francevillian A Formation, not in the Francevillian B Formation. Therefore, I think it does not seem appropriate to add a subsection about the geology of Oklo to the Francevillian B Formation article. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to add details of the geology of Oklo to the Franceville basin article instead? GeoWriter (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeoWriter Have you ever been uploaded "A Modern and Complete Map of the World by the Royal Mathematician Oronce Fine of the Dauphiné" to Internet Archive website (archive.org)? Yuliadhi (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I do not understand your question. I know nothing about this map. GeoWriter (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cataclasite, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GeoWriter,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Quesnoin for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want Quesnoin to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of this edit of yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohs_scale&diff=1122664162&oldid=1122663926 from last November? The description says it you were updating the table, but it looks like you just deleted a ton of useful information. - Burner89751654 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before my edit, there were more than 120 examples in the table. I thought that was too many. I reduced it to about 95 examples split into two tables. Ten of my removals from the "other substances" table were the 10 reference minerals already listed in the reference mineral table of the preceding section - because they are duplicates and they are also not "other substances". Why did you restore these reference minerals to the "other substances" table? My table of about 95 examples could still be considered excessive. There are almost 6,000 minerals and millions of other substances. The table will never include the hardness of all substances. What to include or exclude is a matter of opinion. Obviously, we have drawn the line about what to include at different places. GeoWriter (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, that makes sense. A few minutes ago I added some noteworthy things to the table (some of the commonly used elements, the rest of the birthstones, and a handful of others). If you want, we could balance out that edit by removing some of the more obscure things that are currently in the table. You added a bunch of obscure things in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohs_scale&diff=1122665069&oldid=1122664772 . I'd nominate most of them for removal, but I'll let you weigh in first.

I added the reference minerals back to the lower table so that people wouldn't have to keep scrolling back and forth between the two tables to see how they compare to each other. You're right that they don't really fit the section heading of "other substances." But that's an argument for changing the section heading, rather than removing them. - Burner89751654 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The review that you kindly participated in may be stalling due to a lack of participation. If you are willing to provide a support or oppose opinion, it would help things advance or conclude.

I very much appreciate your help with this article at both the GA and the FA review process already. CT55555(talk) 14:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping considerably on article improvement over time ChaseKiwi (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad someone else tackled that, I was wracking my brain trying to make it work. Thanks! I have to admit to being amused at having two volcanologists tackle an article on a pyrobitumen deposit... Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Shungite is a real oddball. I suppose it needs all the help it can get, even it comes from people whose main focus is on other topics. Thanks for your edits of the article, which is much improved as a result. See you around. GeoWriter (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— hike395 (talk) 20:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happy holidays to you. GeoWriter (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoWriter, I'm just wondering if you like to leave some feedback on my featured article candidate for the Mount Edziza volcanic complex. Volcanoguy 23:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just letting you know that I've nominated the Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex article for FA if you're interested in participating. Volcanoguy 15:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geowriter, I noticed your "citation needed" on all the palaeogeographic maps on the geological period pages. These maps aren't great (next to useless tbh). I saw the Eocene had a Ron Blakey map and followed it back to the armchair explorer website (https://www.thearmchairexplorer.com/geology/cambrian-period.php). This has maps of all the time periods under a CCA-by-SA 4 licence. Would it be worth/can we use these instead? I don't want to go to the effort for them to be deleted by someone who knows more than I do. Thx Silica Cat (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silica Cat, at least some of the palaeogegraphic maps on the armchair explorer website come either directly or indirectly from Ron Blakey with an alleged copyright licence of CC-BY-SA. I think use of Blakey's maps on Wikipedia is problematic because, over the years, some of Blakey's maps have been the subject of copyright licence "washing" (when someone other than the copyright holder either deliberately or accidentally gives an image a different copyright licence and then this incorrect licence is propagated across the internet; see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_laundering). I think some of Blakey's maps were used in some Wikipedia articles over the years but were removed because of copyright concerns. Blakey's current website of his palaeogeographic maps (https://deeptimemaps.com/) seems very heavy on map purchase and displays "© Deep Time Maps™ 2020", which seems to caste doubt on the possibility that these maps have a genuine CC-BY-SA licence. I have seen no proof that the Blakey maps on the armchair explorer website were ever given a CC-BY-SA licence by Blakey (the copyright holder). Therefore, I think such maps should not be on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. GeoWriter (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx GeoWriter. That's useful to know. Hadn't heard of license laundering before. I was surprised to see them there as the Blakey maps are usually strongly copyrighted. Silica Cat (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geowriter, thanks for tidying up after me. I think that producing all those related articles and revising others has pretty much brought me to a halt. Perhaps I would be better going back to working on earthquake articles for a while. I don't even know if I've taken the right approach in all this revision to the stratigraphy. I suppose that the Geology of Scotland article is now in need of some work, so not everything's done. The writing and rewriting has provided a welcome distraction as I wait for my upcoming operation but it has felt like a bit of a treadmill. For instance I was writing the Highland Border Ophiolite article when I realised that exhumed mantle was just a redirect to oceanic core complex, so I felt that a separate article needed to be written. I think that I should probably concentrate now on generating a few maps and diagrams, before I do anything else. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, thanks for revising and creating articles for the revised Scottish stratigraphy. Yes, when a change is made, it can send ripples far and wide across Wikipedia requiring additional effort, but I like to hope that Wikipedia's geology editors will get around to all of them eventually. I'm always pleased to see your geological contributions and I hope that you continue to add whatever you can, doing it at a pace that suits your personal circumstances. I wish you well for your upcoming operation. GeoWriter (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings GeoWriter, I am wondering if it is still too soon to add the new type of lagerstatte to the page on the subject. You told me back in 2020 I believe, that it needed more references, etc. and I don't know anything about what s considered normal. Thanks for your efforts in keeping it real. Oxybelo (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxybelo, I have found fewer than five peer reviewed articles that use the term/concept of liberation-lagerstätte since it was proposed by Rodin et al. in 2019 (and two of those arcticles are by Rodin et al.). My opinion is that liberation-lagerstätte has not been widely accepted or used in palaeontology, so I think WP:Fringe theories and WP:UNDUE could be relevant to the question of its inclusion or exclusion at the Lagerstätte article in Wikipedia. I'm not an expert on lagerstätte, therefore I suggest that it is better for you to ask about liberation-lagerstätte at Talk:Lagerstätte and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology, because your question will then be seen by more people with palaeontological knowledge. GeoWriter (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeoWriter, I would like to know if you have any comments for the Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex article since I've renominated it for FA here. Thanks. Volcanoguy 21:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and the RM at the talk page of Eurasian Plate was relisted on the 15th, so not much time left. Logic and commonsense would keep the uppercasing on the 90+ plates under discussion, but lowercasers are using the casing guideline, which some of us have countered with WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE which is under fairly intense discussion. If you agree with this approach, or even have more comments, your additional participation wouldn't hurt. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Conduct of user FlightTime towards other editors. Thank you. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Edziza is at FAC if you're interested. Volcanoguy 21:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for explaining the "pale orange dot" picture. I thought it was something like that, but I don't know enough about the science of it to add anything myself, so I put that "clarify" tag on it. Appreciated. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello good sir!!

I recently added a 'climate' section on Pangaea's wikipedia article. Is it fine? It was marked as paraphrasing, should I be concerned that it may be considered as plagiarism due to the paraphrasing and be removed? Thank you for reading :D. NectarLupine (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NectarLupine, my opinion is that your text is currently too close to the text of the cited source and it is likely that an editor (who does not want to do a rewrite) could remove your text from Wikipedia's Pangaea article to avoid any potential copyright problems. You could try to change your text to be much less close to the source's phrasing. One possible technique that you may find helpful is to drastically reduce the number of words in your revised version, like a summary of a summary, keeping the most major points and removing most of the detail (but remembering to also keep the accuracy). GeoWriter (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeoWriter, I did a significant reorganization. I request you to see if it currently meets Wikipedia's standard or not. Thank you for your time :D. Pangaea.

NectarLupine (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edits are an improvement, so I have removed the "close paraphrasing" template from the Pangea article. GeoWriter (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think "displace" is commonly and appropriately used when CO2 is injected to replace other fluids, like in CO2–water displacement processes. But in this case, where CO2 causes a violent eruption and a "trigger pushes gas-saturated water higher"—eject or expel might be more suitable.

so I hope you'll consider changing it back!

EggsBeforeBreakfast (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize and $500 into geography and populated place articles. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to inform you about Eve Cone's FAC in case you would interested in doing a review. Volcanoguy 19:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'm wanting to do some edits to the Obsidian article, and you seem to monitor the page a lot, so I wanted your input!

If you're willing, please chime in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Obsidian#Proposed_Edits

Thank you!

MajoraZ (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]